Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Status of the Application
Claims 1-20 have been examined in this application.
The filling date of this application number recited above is 20-June-2024. Domestic Benefit/National Stage priority has been claimed for Provisional Applications 63/597,689 and 63/547,997 in the Application Data Sheet, thus the examination will be undertaken in consideration of 09-November-2023 and 10-November-2023, as the priority date, for applicable claims.
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 20-June-2024 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more. The Claims are directed to an abstract idea, Mathematical Concepts, Mental Process, and/or Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity. The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional computer elements, which are recited at a high level of generality, provide conventional computer functions that do not add meaningful limits to practicing the abstract idea.
As per Claim 1, the claim recites “an [entity] having a [group] comprising [workers] executable by a [supervisor] to implement a method of a cooperative life insurance fund with a variable payout, a plurality of participants participating in the cooperative life insurance fund, the [group] comprising:
(a) [workers] receiving a request for participation in a fund for a term from a user, the request comprising a payout and a plurality of information associated with the user;
(b) [workers] evaluating the plurality of information associated with the user and verifying an eligibility of the user in the cooperative life insurance fund and, upon verifying eligibility, enrolling the user as a participant among the plurality of participants and generating a policy for the participant for the requested term, wherein the policy specifies a contribution by the participant and a base benefit multiplier, and wherein a payout to a beneficiary of the participant is computed by setting aside a management fee from the contribution by the participant during a time period from a beginning of the term until a time of claim payout, and multiplying a remainder of the contribution by the participant with the base benefit multiplier and a benefit adjustment factor, whereby:
i. the base benefit multiplier is computed using a discrete non-linear function that varies according to one or more information in the plurality of information;
ii. the benefit adjustment factor is computed to be proportional to a difference between a performance of the cooperative life insurance fund at the time of beneficiary payout and a projected fund performance at the beginning of the term;
(c) [workers] periodically collecting, over a first pre-determined time interval, a payment for the contribution from the plurality of participants;
(d) [workers] periodically computing, over a second pre-determined time interval, the benefit adjustment factor for the cooperative life insurance fund to adjust payouts; and
(e) [workers] determining when a payout is deemed necessary to a given beneficiary associated with a given participant among the plurality of participants, and determining a given claim payout and transferring the given claim payout to the given beneficiary and eliminating the given participant among the plurality of participants associated with the cooperative life insurance fund.”
As per Claim 14, the claim recites “a [entity] comprising:
(a) a [supervisor];
(b) [group] storing [workers] executable by the [supervisor], the [group] comprising:
i. [workers] receiving a request for participation in a fund for a term from a user, the request comprising a payout and a plurality of information associated with the user;
ii. [workers] evaluating the plurality of information associated with the user and verifying an eligibility of the user in the cooperative life insurance fund and, upon verifying eligibility, enrolling the user as a participant among the plurality of participants and generating a policy for the participant for the requested term, wherein the policy specifies a contribution by the participant and a base benefit multiplier, and wherein a payout to a beneficiary of the participant is computed by setting aside a management fee from the contribution by the participant during a time period from a beginning of the term until a time of claim payout, and multiplying a remainder of the contribution by the participant with the base benefit multiplier and a benefit adjustment factor, whereby: (1) the base benefit multiplier is computed using a discrete non-linear function that varies according to one or more information in the plurality of information; and (2) the benefit adjustment factor is computed to be proportional to a difference between a performance of the cooperative life insurance fund at the time of beneficiary payout and a projected fund performance at the beginning of the term;
iii. [workers] periodically collecting, over a first pre-determined time interval, a payment for the contribution from the plurality of participants;
iv. [workers] periodically computing, over a second pre-determined time interval, the benefit adjustment factor for the cooperative life insurance fund to adjust payouts; and
v. [workers] determining when a payout is deemed necessary to a given beneficiary associated with a given participant among the plurality of participants, and determining a given claim payout and transferring the given claim payout to the given beneficiary and eliminating the given participant among the plurality of participants associated with the cooperative life insurance fund;
(c) a [library] to store participant profiles, accounts, policies and security settings, and historic and present insurance fund information including pool, surplus and investments; and
(d) a [communicator] to communicate with at least a fund operator …, a participant’s client [representative], and a payment [entity].”
The limitation of the claims recited above, considering the claims without the additional elements (e.g. article of manufacture, non-transitory computer readable storage medium, computer readable program code, system, processor, etc.), under its broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI), recites Mathematical Concepts, Mental Process, and/or Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity. The manufacture and/or machine recited by the claims above discloses a process of implementing “a method of a cooperative life insurance fund with a variable payout”, wherein the series of steps associated with data analysis (e.g. receive data, evaluate data, compute data, compare data, etc.) include various mathematical concepts (e.g. applying equations, calculations, formulas, variables, etc.) as disclosed by Specification:
[0076] “According to the second aspect of this invention, the benefit is determined by multiplying the participant’s net contribution by the benefit multiplier, … Mathematically, the BBM is represented as a multi-variable non-linear function”;
[0085] “According to an embodiment of this invention, the formula for the variable benefit payout T time intervals after the coverage start time of policyholder-(i) is given below”;
[0119] “According to this invention, the formula for the surplus redistribution benefit for a time interval T - T3, by considering the surplus that remains in the fund is as follows”.
All these steps recited by the claims can be practically performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper. See MPEP 2106.04(III)(A):
“In contrast, claims do recite a mental process when they contain limitations that can practically be performed in the human mind, including for example, observations, evaluations, judgments, and opinions. Examples of claims that recite mental processes include:
• a claim to "collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection and analysis," where the data analysis steps are recited at a high level of generality such that they could practically be performed in the human mind, Electric Power Group v. Alstom, S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1353-54, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1741-42 (Fed. Cir. 2016);
• claims to "comparing BRCA sequences and determining the existence of alterations," where the claims cover any way of comparing BRCA sequences such that the comparison steps can practically be performed in the human mind, University of Utah Research Foundation v. Ambry Genetics, 774 F.3d 755, 763, 113 USPQ2d 1241, 1246 (Fed. Cir. 2014);
• a claim to collecting and comparing known information (claim 1), which are steps that can be practically performed in the human mind, Classen Immunotherapies, Inc. v. Biogen IDEC, 659 F.3d 1057, 1067, 100 USPQ2d 1492, 1500 (Fed. Cir. 2011); and
• a claim to identifying head shape and applying hair designs, which is a process that can be practically performed in the human mind, In re Brown, 645 Fed. App'x 1014, 1016-17 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (non-precedential).”
Although the claims may recite using a computer system to perform the data analysis steps, performing a mental process on a generic computer still recite a mental process. See MPEP 2106.04(III)(C):
“Claims can recite a mental process even if they are claimed as being performed on a computer. The Supreme Court recognized this in Benson, determining that a mathematical algorithm for converting binary coded decimal to pure binary within a computer’s shift register was an abstract idea. The Court concluded that the algorithm could be performed purely mentally even though the claimed procedures "can be carried out in existing computers long in use, no new machinery being necessary." 409 U.S at 67, 175 USPQ at 675. See also Mortgage Grader, 811 F.3d at 1324, 117 USPQ2d at 1699 (concluding that concept of "anonymous loan shopping" recited in a computer system claim is an abstract idea because it could be "performed by humans without a computer").”
Additionally, the invention is towards “method and system for cooperative life insurance with variable payout”, as disclosed by Specification:
[0002] “The present invention generally relates to an apparatus and several methods for risk modeling and benefit payout methodology for insurances, and specifically for providing and administering a cooperative life insurance”;
[0016] “The present invention overcomes various shortcomings of the conventional life insurance models and the Takaful model. Here, novel cooperative life insurance methods and systems are described with a variable payout that rewards participation and the fund’s overall success and distributes both risks and rewards fairly. The model provides a high level of flexibility to the insurance fund as well as the insured leveraging the collaborative aspects of Takaful”.
The system and method of providing improved life insurance models is fundamental economic principles or practices and/or commercial or legal interactions, which are all under certain methods of organizing human activities.
Therefore, the claims recite an abstract idea, Mathematical Concepts, Mental Process, and/or Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity.
This judicial exception is not integrated into practical application. In particular, the claims recite an additional element of “article of manufacture”, “non-transitory computer readable storage medium”, “computer readable program code”, “processor”, “system”, “storage”, “database”, and “communications interface” to perform the method recited above by instructing the abstract idea to be performed “by” these generic computer components. These general computer components are recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer system. These elements are generic, off-the-shelf components available to the public, and does not require any specialized hardware or equipment to perform the claimed method, and are merely applied to perform its basic functionalities, such as: receive data, evaluate data, compare data, compute data, collect data, transmit data, store data, and communicate data, as disclosed by Specification:
[0138] “The above-described features and applications can be implemented as software processes that are specified as a set of instructions recorded on a computer readable storage medium (also referred to as computer readable medium) … Such non-transitory computer-readable storage media can be any available media that can be accessed by a general purpose or special purpose computer, including the functional design of any special purpose processor. By way of example, and not limitation, such non-transitory computer-readable media can include flash memory, RAM, ROM, EEPROM, CD-ROM or other optical disk storage, magnetic disk storage or other magnetic storage devices, or any other medium which can be used to carry or store desired program code means in the form of computer-executable instructions, data structures, or processor chip design”
[0139] “Computer-executable instructions include, for example, instructions and data which cause a general-purpose computer, special purpose computer, or special purpose processing device to perform a certain function or group of functions … Generally, program modules include routines, programs, components, data structures, objects, and the functions inherent in the design of special-purpose processors, etc. that perform particular tasks or implement particular abstract data types”
[0140] “Processors suitable for the execution of a computer program include, by way of example, both general and special purpose microprocessors, and any one or more processors of any kind of digital computer”
[0142] “A computer program (also known as a program, software, software application, script, or code) can be written in any form of programming language, including compiled or interpreted languages, declarative or procedural languages, and it can be deployed in any form, including as a stand-alone program or as a module, component, subroutine, object, or other unit suitable for use in a computing environment”
[0143] “These functions described above can be implemented in digital electronic circuitry, in computer software, firmware or hardware”
[0144] “Some examples of such computer-readable media include RAM, ROM, read-only compact discs (CD-ROM), recordable compact discs (CD-R), rewritable compact discs (CD-RW), read-only digital versatile discs (e.g., DVD-ROM, dual-layer DVD-ROM), a variety of recordable/rewritable DVDs (e.g., DVD-RAM, DVD-RW, DVD+RW, etc.), flash memory (e.g., SD cards, mini-SD cards, micro-SD cards, etc.), magnetic or solid state hard drives, read-only and recordable Blu-Ray® discs, ultra density optical discs, any other optical or magnetic media, and floppy disks”
Mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a generic computer system, or merely using the generic computer system as a tool to perform the abstract idea (e.g. mere “apply it”) is not indicative of integration into a practical application; see MPEP 2106.05(f). Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive data, evaluate data, compute data, etc.) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., mathematical concepts, mental process, or certain methods of organizing human activities) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more. See Affinity Labs v. DirecTV, 838 F.3d 1253, 1262, 120 USPQ2d 1201, 1207 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (cellular telephone); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto, LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 613, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1748 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (computer server and telephone unit). Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claims are directed to an abstract idea.
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, when analyzed as a whole, considering the additional elements individually and/or as an ordered combination, the additional element of using a computer based system is recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer system. The claims lack sufficient technical details to provide how these limitations may provide technological steps or technical details on how it is particularly implemented on a computer to improve its system or any of its underlying hardware or components (e.g. how it is performed on the computer, how it could improve the computer itself, how it could manipulate the computer to function in a specific way other than its generic functionality, and/or how it could improve any of the underlying technology), but merely applies the generic computer system to perform its generic functionalities. Merely using the generic computer system as a tool to perform the abstract idea (e.g. mere “apply it”) is not indicative of an inventive concept (aka “significantly more”). In view of the Specification cited above, the judicial exception is not applied with or used by a particular machine. As held in Parker v. Flook, 437 U.S. 584, 590, 198 USPQ 193, 199 (1978) and Bancorp Services v. Sun Life, 687 F.3d 1266, 1276, 103 USPQ2d 1425, 1433 (Fed. Cir. 2012), “the routine use of a computer to perform calculations cannot turn an otherwise ineligible mathematical formula or law of nature into patentable subject matter.” The claims are not patent eligible.
Regarding dependent claims, they are still directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claim 2 recites “wherein the plurality of information associated with the user comprises any of, or a combination of, the following: age, gender, occupation, location, lifestyle, and health condition of the user.” The claim provides further details regarding the information, which is still part of the abstract idea, and the additional elements are still mere “apply it”, which is not indicative of integration into practical application.
Claim 3 recites “wherein the non-transitory computer readable storage medium further comprises: (a) after setting aside the management fee, for each participant, computer readable program code maintaining a balance in a claims reserve and a fund reserve according to a pre-determined reserve ratio, wherein funds in the claims reserve and fund reserve are used to pay claims, and wherein the fund reserve has strictly unearned premium, and the claims reserve has both unearned and earned premiums; (b) computer readable program code transferring a portion of fund reserve to a fund operator for investment purposes; (c) computer readable program code receiving periodically, from the fund operator, investment income; (d) computer readable program code adding, the investment income to the cooperative life insurance fund; (e) computer readable program code determining, as a surplus, an earned premium component of the claims reserve remaining after an actual as well as an expected claims are paid out for a time period; and (f) computer readable program code redistributing a portion of the cooperative life insurance fund as surplus to each participant within the plurality of participants at a term end in form of a cash return proportional to the ratio of total contributions made by each participant to the total contributions collected from the plurality of participants who are not paid out.” The claim provides further steps of data analysis, which is still part of the abstract idea, and the additional elements are still mere “apply it”, which is not indicative of integration into practical application.
Claim 4 recites “wherein the predetermined reserve ratio is dynamically readjusted for all new participants and renewing participants when the cooperative life insurance fund reserve falls below a certain threshold compared to its pro-forma level due to claims payouts.” The claim provides further details regarding the data, which is still part of the abstract idea, and the additional elements are still mere “apply it”, which is not indicative of integration into practical application.
Claims 5 and 15 recite “wherein the benefit adjustment factor is equal to one if the cooperative life insurance fund’s actual performance is same as or better than the projected fund performance at the beginning of the policy, and slightly less than one if the cooperative life insurance fund’s actual performance is worse than the projected fund performance.” The claims provide further details regarding the data, which is still part of the abstract idea, and the additional elements are still mere “apply it”, which is not indicative of integration into practical application.
Claims 6 and 16 recite “wherein actual and projected performances is determined using any of, or a combination of, the following: a shortfall method, a cashflow method, and a loss ratio method.” The claims provide further details regarding the data analysis method, which is still part of the abstract idea, and the additional elements are still mere “apply it”, which is not indicative of integration into practical application.
Claims 7 and 17 recite “wherein the shortfall method is as follows:
AF(T)=
1
;
P
a
≤
P
e
C
r
+
k
x
F
r
-
P
a
-
P
e
/
(
C
r
+
k
x
F
r
)
)
;
P
a
>
P
e
where
Pa – total actual claims,
Pe –total projected claims at underwriting,
(Pa-Pe) –shortfall of total claims,
Cr – current claims reserve,
Fr – current fund reserve, and
k – a scalar determining the portion of Fr used for claim payouts.”
The claims provide further details regarding the data analysis method, which is still part of the abstract idea, and the additional elements are still mere “apply it”, which is not indicative of integration into practical application.
Claim 8 recites “wherein the scalar k is 0.7” The claim provides further details regarding the data analysis method, which is still part of the abstract idea, and the additional elements are still mere “apply it”, which is not indicative of integration into practical application.
Claims 9 and 18 recite “wherein the cash flow method is as follows:
A
F
(
T
)
=
1
;
C
f
i
a
+
C
r
≥
(
C
f
o
a
+
C
r
p
f
)
C
r
+
k
x
F
r
+
C
f
i
a
/
C
r
p
f
+
k
x
F
r
+
C
f
o
a
;
o
t
h
e
r
w
i
s
e
where
Cfia – cash in expected over the next 12 mo. through contributions from renewals and new policies
Cfoa – cash out expected over the next 12 mo. through payments of claims
Crpf – pro-forma Cr
Pa – total actual claims,
Pe –total projected claims at underwriting,
(Pa-Pe) –shortfall of total claims,
Cr – current claims reserve,
Fr – current fund reserve, and
k – a scalar determining the portion of Fr used for claim payouts.”
The claims provide further details regarding the data analysis method, which is still part of the abstract idea, and the additional elements are still mere “apply it”, which is not indicative of integration into practical application.
Claim 10 recites “wherein the scalar k is 0.7.” The claim provides further details regarding the data analysis method, which is still part of the abstract idea, and the additional elements are still mere “apply it”, which is not indicative of integration into practical application.
Claims 11 and 19 recite “wherein the loss-ratio method is as follows:
A
F
T
=
1
;
L
R
a
≤
L
R
e
1
-
L
r
a
-
L
r
e
;
L
R
a
>
L
R
e
where
Lra – current loss ratio at T, and
Lre –loss ratio threshold.”
The claims provide further details regarding the data analysis method, which is still part of the abstract idea, and the additional elements are still mere “apply it”, which is not indicative of integration into practical application.
Claim 12 recites “wherein the non-transitory computer readable storage medium further comprises computer readable program code terminating a first participant’s policy after an expiration of an associated term, and returning to said first participant, a share of a surplus.” The claim provides further steps of data analysis, which is still part of the abstract idea, and the additional elements are still mere “apply it”, which is not indicative of integration into practical application.
Claim 13 recites “wherein the share of the surplus is computed as follows:
B
S
T
3
,
i
=
S
f
T
3
x
[
∑
T
T
3
C
i
/
∑
i
∑
T
T
3
C
i
]
where
BS(T3, i) – the surplus benefit payable to policyholder-(i) at time point T3
∑
T
T
3
C
i
- the total contributions paid by policyholder-(i) from T to T3
∑
i
∑
T
T
3
C
i
- the total contributions paid by all active policyholders and not paid out from T to T3, and
Sf (T3) - the total surplus in the fund at T3.”
The claim provides further details regarding the data analysis computation, which is still part of the abstract idea, and the additional elements are still mere “apply it”, which is not indicative of integration into practical application.
Claim 20 recites “wherein the non-transitory computer readable storage medium further comprises computer readable program code terminating a first participant’s policy after an expiration of an associated term, and returning to said first participant, a share of a surplus, wherein the share of the surplus is computed as follows:
B
S
T
3
,
i
=
S
f
T
3
x
[
∑
T
T
3
C
i
/
∑
i
∑
T
T
3
C
i
]
where
BS(T3, i) – the surplus benefit payable to policyholder-(i) at time point T3
∑
T
T
3
C
i
- the total contributions paid by policyholder-(i) from T to T3
∑
i
∑
T
T
3
C
i
- the total contributions paid by all active policyholders and not paid out from T to T3, and
Sf (T3) - the total surplus in the fund at T3.”
The claim provides further details regarding the data analysis computation, which is still part of the abstract idea, and the additional elements are still mere “apply it”, which is not indicative of integration into practical application.
These additional steps of each claims fail to remedy the deficiencies of their parent claim above because they are merely further limiting the rules used to conduct the previously recited abstract idea, and are therefore rejected for at least the same rationale as applied to their parent claim above.
Claims 2-13 and 15-20, when analyzed as a whole, considering the additional elements individually and/or as an ordered combination, are held to be patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the additional recited limitations fail to establish that the claims are sufficient to integrate into a practical application and do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Similarly to the independent claim, each claim recites using a generic computer system to perform the abstract idea as mentioned above. Mere “apply it” is not “significantly more”. Therefore, prong 2 and step 2B analysis are similar to above and these claims are not eligible.
Therefore, Claims 1-20 are not drawn to eligible subject matter as they are directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1 and 2 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Halley et al. (US 4750121 A) in view of Ryan et al. (US 5655085 A).
As per Claim 1, Halley discloses an article of manufacture having a non-transitory computer readable storage medium comprising computer readable program code executable by a processor to implement a method of a cooperative life insurance fund with a variable payout, a plurality of participants participating in the cooperative life insurance fund (See Figure 2), the non-transitory computer readable storage medium comprising:
(a) computer readable program code receiving a request for participation in a fund for a term from a user, the request comprising a payout and a plurality of information associated with the user ([Col 1 Lines 61-67] “The functions of the master trust institution include: computing and receiving each subscriber employer's periodic payment thereinto based primarily upon that employer's number of current employees, their ages and monthly earnings; purchasing and retaining a life insurance policy from the life insurance institution covering each enrolled employee”);
(b) computer readable program code evaluating the plurality of information associated with the user and verifying an eligibility of the user in the cooperative life insurance fund and, upon verifying eligibility, enrolling the user as a participant among the plurality of participants and generating a policy for the participant for the requested term (Claim 8 “A pension benefits system as set forth in claim 7, wherein: each enrollable employee is between the ages of 18 and 60 to be eligible for participation in said system”), wherein the policy specifies a contribution by the participant and a base benefit multiplier ([Col 4 Lines 61-64] “All benefits are periodic, and preferably monthly, and are equal to a fixed percentage of each enrolled employee's final monthly average income”), and wherein a payout to a beneficiary of the participant is computed by setting aside a management fee from the contribution by the participant during a time period from a beginning of the term until a time of claim payout ([Col 3 Lines 42-50] “Coupled with a whole life insurance policy on each enrolled employee's life, the pre-funded pool 14 also automatically purchases a one-year term dividend increasing term rider in conjunction with each whole life policy, providing for increasing proceeds without the expense of first year agent commissions and additional policy fees and handling expenses by the life insurer institution 12”), and multiplying a remainder of the contribution by the participant with the base benefit multiplier and a benefit adjustment factor ([Col 4 Lines 65-68 to Col 5 Lines 1-15] “The system provides a formula for determining that final income level which is the greater of: i. the last projected salary to age 64, the monthly salary at entry age increased 5 percent yearly (simple interest) to age 64; or ii. career average salary to age 60; or iii. average monthly salary between age 56 and 60 increased a predetermined percentage of 5% simple interest to age 64 … Alternately, this minimum level of benefits at any point in the employee's career that he becomes disabled or dies, or retires at age 65, may be incorporated into table form whereby his entry level salary may be multiplied by a factor determined by the pre-established inflation factor as a percentage of benefits' yearly increase and the number of years of service”), whereby:
…
(c) computer readable program code periodically collecting, over a first pre-determined time interval, a payment for the contribution from the plurality of participants ([Col 5 Lines 23-28] “Referring now to FIG. 3, the subscriber employer contribution computing means for determining each subscriber employer's periodic contribution into the master trust institution is shown. This calculation of employer contribution is calculated preferably annually for each employer at 20”);
(d) computer readable program code periodically computing, over a second pre-determined time interval, the benefit adjustment factor for the cooperative life insurance fund to adjust payouts ([Col 5 Lines 45-53] “At 30, the future value of all liabilities are calculated based upon the previously discussed minimum benefits projection at age 65, and assumed minimum number of years of continuous and certain payable benefits until age "G" which will be increased by the assumed simple interest percentage per year after retirement. At 32, the immediate future assets of all life insurance policies issued for each subscriber employer' s employees is determined”); and
(e) computer readable program code determining when a payout is deemed necessary to a given beneficiary associated with a given participant among the plurality of participants, and determining a given claim payout and transferring the given claim payout to the given beneficiary and eliminating the given participant among the plurality of participants associated with the cooperative life insurance fund ([Col 3 Lines 54-57] “the present system retains the whole life policy in force until death. The one year progressive term dividend rider portion of the life insurance is terminated at age 65”).
Although Halley teaches of a cooperative life insurance fund using various calculations associated with benefits and payouts, the prior art does not seem to explicitly disclose of computing the base benefit multiplier using a discrete non-linear function and the benefit adjustment factor. However, Ryan discloses:
i. the base benefit multiplier is computed using a discrete non-linear function that varies according to one or more information in the plurality of information ([Col 20 Lines 44-54] “Then, in Block 154, Iterate on Target Value: Death Benefit, Cash Value or Premium, the system enters into an iterative illustration loop used to solve for the target value, refining its initial guesses as to Premium Guideline Amounts and Specified Amount, moving to FIG. 3F-1. In order to solve for these policy values the system computes additional guesses, and tests those guesses iteratively until it finds the appropriate target value. This kind of iteration is required because of the non-linear nature of universal life insurance policy values, as many of the policy values being solved for will have no closed form solution” and see Figure 3F-1 disclosing the steps to compute the insurance values using specified insurance parameters using iterations);
ii. the benefit adjustment factor is computed to be proportional to a difference between a performance of the cooperative life insurance fund at the time of beneficiary payout and a projected fund performance at the beginning of the term ([Col 20 Lines 21-34] “In Block 146, Compute Specified Amount, the system uses the guideline values previously computed to calculate a Specified Amount. The Specified Amount is the amount that the insurance company will pay the beneficiary upon the death of the insured … The Specified Amount is a common life insurance variable and is equal to the basic, stated policy death benefit (the face amount of the policy). The policy death benefit will remain equal to the Specified Amount until such time as changes in cash value cause it to change. Withdrawals of cash value or cash value growth may cause a decrease or increase in the death benefit”);
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to utilize the computation of benefit multiplier and benefit adjustment factor as in Ryan in the system executing the method of Halley with the motivation of offering to improve the system of [Col 4 Lines 42-45] “using iteration to efficiently arrive at the correct amount of a universal life insurance policy premium and, indeed, amounts for other universal life insurance policies as well” as taught by Ryan over that of Halley.
As per Claim 2, Halley discloses the article of manufacture as per claim 1, wherein the plurality of information associated with the user comprises any of, or a combination of, the following: age, gender, occupation, location, lifestyle, and health condition of the user (Claim 8 “A pension benefits system as set forth in claim 7, wherein: each enrollable employee is between the ages of 18 and 60 to be eligible for participation in said system”).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Parankirinathan (US 20050071204 A1) discloses [0031] “committing the Coverage Provider to pay the Coverage Recipient a benefit equal to a percentage of the positive difference between the expected death benefit and an actual death benefit payable to the Coverage Recipient due to actual deaths of members of the group of insured lives, said deaths occurring between the beginning date and the end date”.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HENRY H JUNG whose telephone number is (571)270-5018. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 9:30 - 5:30.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Christine M Tran (Behncke) can be reached at (571) 272-8103. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/HENRY H JUNG/ Examiner, Art Unit 3695
/CHRISTINE M Tran/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3695
Prosecution Insights